www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Saints go Marching In?

Dear Friends,

It appears that there is some movement toward the recognition of more New Martyrs and Confessors of the Faith. The following is from the UGCC official website. The full text is at:

http://www.ugcc.org.ua/eng/news/article;384/

-----------------------------------

Permanent Synod Of Greek Catholic Bishops Held In Rome

08.02, [18:24] // News // UGCC Info

A meeting of the Permanent Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) was held from 3 to 6 February in Rome, Italy. The UGCC hierarchs gathered to discuss the problems of the beatification of Ukrainian confessors of the faith, as well as the religious situation in Ukraine.

On 5 February 2003, Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, head of the UGCC, and members of the Synod met with Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, and Archbishop Edward Nowak, secretary of the Congregation.

During this meeting, the UGCC bishops discussed the problems that arise in the process of beatification and canonization. Special attention was focused on the beatification of Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky, which has now entered its final stage.

In addition, the Ukrainian hierarchs presented a list of new martyrs of the UGCC whose beatification processes will be started shortly. All necessary documents for the beatification of Cardinal Josyf Slipyj were also submitted to the congregation's officers.

---------------------------------------

May the Universal Church recognize these Servants of God.

Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Glory Forever!!!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Through the prayers of the Servants of God Andrey and Josyp, O Lord have mercy on us! Great news!

Why does the Permanent Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (a sui iuris Church)meet in Rome? Why not in Ukrania? As far as I know no national Catholic Conference of Bishops meets in Rome, but obviously the Italian Conference of Bishops. This is one of the things about the Eastern Catholic Churches I will never understand.

Just a quick observation.

A national Catholic Conference of Bishops differs from a Synod of Bishops.

A Synod of Bishops contains bishops from all over the world, all Bishops that are bishops in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church are part of the Permanent Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, that is all bishops of a sui iuris Church are part of that churches Permanent Synod of Bishops.

A national Conference of Catholic Bishops contain bishops of a country, regardless of sui iuris Church.

For example, all bishops in the United States are part of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

I think some education is necessary before one complains about our churches.

David

Dear David,

You are right (you should be a priest or something ).

In addition, it is good for the synod to meet in Rome once in a while to go over and settle those administrative matters that can only be done with the various curial offices, including the introduction of Causes of Saints.

I've always been one, as you know, to push for the canonization of local Saints by the Particular Church. But failing that, it is best to go straight to the horses' mouth in the Congregation for the Causes and tell them all about it . . .

Patriarch Huzar (YOU may call him whatever ) also insists on Rome officially recognizing what is already a reality - the UGCC Patriarchate so he wants to make his presence in Rome felt.

The UGCC has holdings in Rome and it shouldn't give up those either. The adage holds true - use it or lose it.

I think Francisco should concentrate, if he wishes, on returning the rights and privileges of the Particular Mozarabic Church of Spain . . .

God bless you both,

Alex

Dear David,

Thank you very much for explaining to me the difference between a national Catholic Conference of Bishops and a Synod of Bishops of a sui iuris Church (obviously the difference was quite clear to me when I wrote my previous post but it does not really matter).

In your last post you write “I think some education is necessary before one complains about our churches”. The English word “education” has got two meanings for me (a non English speaker): 1) good manners (I consider that I was quite polite in my last post but if I were not I would like to ask your pardon) and 2) instruction (I do not pretend to know every thing but I try to improve my knowledge everyday).

About the expression “our churches”, I will like to remind you (I am sure you know it pretty well) that, according to the ecclesiology of Apostle Paul, we all are members of the Church, body of Christ, no matter to which particular church we do belong, and that, as members of the same body, your problems are my problems as well and when you are happy I also share you happiness. In the section Byzantine News of this forum there is a topic (a world to Roman Catholic Forum members) in which the Administrator writes “ Roman Catholics who have come here to learn about Eastern Christianity are most welcome. Roman Catholics who have come here to use Latin doctrinal expressions as a measurement of our Catholicism are not welcome”. But, I wonder, what happens when a Latin Catholics shows his/her disapproval to some of the latinizations some of the Eastern Catholic Churches had suffered. That is quite simple, we tell him/her that this is not his/her bussiness.

The Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine is involved in a quite interesting historical process, it is trying to become a patriarcal Church. In my last post I just wanted to express a personal opinion (you can agree with me or not) that the Synod of a sui iuris Church which wants to become a patriarcal Church should celebrate its meetings in its patriarchal see in Ukraine and not in Rome (Patriarchal See of the Western Patriarchate) and that a patriach, should not be at the same time patriarch and cardinal (elector of another particular Church) of the Roman Church. That is my opinion and the opinion of the other byzantine Patriarchal See (Patriarchate of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem). I respect your opinion I hope that you will also respect the mine one in spite of the fact that I am not Ukranian Greek-Catholic, because in the Church of Christ there is no distinction between Jews or Greeks, Spanish or Ukranians.

YOURS in Christ

F

Dear Alex,

Taking into account that you are a personal friend of his holiness pope John Paul II and that his mother was a Byzantine Catholic your services in favour of the restauration of the rights and privileges of the Church of Spain will be much apreciated. The problem about the restauration of the rights and privileges of the Church of Spain is that most Spanish bishops have got no idea about this part of the history of the Church of Spain and those who are aware of it have no interest in recovering the liturgical, theological and canonical heritage of the Spanish Church. Thank you very much in any case for your interest for the Church of Spain(my Church is also your Church).
Your in Christ
F

Dear Francisco,

I doubt if His Holiness would recognize me in a crowd, but who knows?

I do believe that the West will experience a "back to tradition" liturgical movement and that this may trigger a revival of the old liturgical traditions of the West, including the great Mozarabic tradition.

Something to pray for . . .

Alex

Interesting question: does anyone know if someone has made tapes of Western Liturgies that one does not often see? I, for one, would like very much to see a Mozarabic Liturgy or an Ambrosian Liturgy (and whatever else they've got).

Francisco,
I do not wish to fight with you but I must point a couple of things out.

This was not obvious to me, as you seemed to use "national Catholic Conference of Bishops" and "Synod of Bishops" interchangeably.

You said, As far as I know no national Catholic Conference of Bishops meets in Rome but the comment was directed towards the Synod of Bishops meeting in Rome, not the national Conference.

Well I guess I meant it in both ways. Seems lately that people outside of our sui iuris Churches have been criticizing the acts of our heirarchs and actions of them.

As for the second part, from what I read it appeared to me that you did not understand the difference between a national Conference and a Synod.

While all you say is true, this issue has nothing to do with theology or doctrine, but governance, as I said before, seems that as of late a lot of people who are out side of a particular church have started to comment on and criticize the internal governance of said church. I do not think this is correct.

Now that you spell out your opinion, rather than just criticizing, I understand and do respect but I will add read Alex's reply.

As for a patriarch not being a cardinal, I disagree. I think patriarchs should be involved in determining who the pope is as the pope is not only patriarch of the west, but he is also supreme pontif of the universal catholic church.

Your brother in Christ,
David

Greetings all,

Just to chime in here, I do not think any of us were made privledge to the reasons behind Their Excellencies decision on where to meet.

If they were COMMANDED to meet in Rome, I do not think any of us could help but be dismayed at that thought.

If for some reason, know to them, they DECIDED to meet in Rome, who are we to argue?

I am kinda partial to Alex's 'theory' of "Hi We're Here! Remember us?!" Sometimes Rome needs to be shaken up a bit ( in a nice, fraternal sense of course), and a bunch of Ukies filling the Sistine with Church Slovonic sounds like just the ticket

And who knows, maybe they just wanted a break from those Ukranian winters After looking at the weather reports for Kiev and Rome, I can think of which city I would rather be in at the moment

-Brendan

(did I ever mention that Irish Catholics tend to be a bit irreverant at times? Somehow God still seems to love, a testimate to His Everlasting Mercy)

David,

A Patriarch ranks above a Cardinal, an equal to, but in deference to, the Pope.

The same cannot be said of a Cardinal.

So refering to a Patriarch who is also a Cardinal, is like refering to a Patriarch as 'Bishop'. Technically true, but it does not convey the appropriate amount of Honor that the recipient is entitled to.

In Christ,

Brendan

This is true, and that is why when the title of cardinal is given to an Eastern bishop, or patriarch, it is only symbolic. If you watched the ceremony on EWTN when this last occured, the Eastern bishops who were given this honor were not vested as cardinals.

And while a patriarch does rank above a cardinal, he does not have the right to act as a elector for the papacy.

Until such a time as this is addressed, I have no problem with patriarchs being cardinals.

As for your analogy, I believe it is a bit flawed, as a cardinal has no ecclesiacical power over a bishop.

I only say this because I know of some RCs who think a cardinal can order a bishop to do something.

Your brother in Christ,
David

Dear Brendan Scotus Eriugena,

The more I read what you have to say, the more I like you!

The idea of Slavic chant in the Sistine Chapel reminds me of a group of Ukie pilgrims to Coptic Egypt.

The priests went into a Coptic Orthodox Church and asked the monks if they could use it for a Ukrainian Catholic Vespers service.

The monks were shocked, but Father Euthymius was already unpacking his liturgical case . . .

"We don't have the authority to make such decisions . . ." the monks went on.

"That's O.K., we take full responsibility!" Father Euthymius chimed in as he was vesting.

"Some of your Coptic bishops were once exiled to Crimea - and we loved having them" he said, smiling . . .

"Blessed be our God . . ." Father Euthumius continued.

Alex

This is true, and that is why when the title of cardinal is given to an Eastern bishop, or patriarch, it is only symbolic. If you watched the ceremony on EWTN when this last occured, the Eastern bishops who were given this honor were not vested as cardinals.

It depends on which Eastern bishops you are referring to. Certainly, the Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch/Major Archbishop of the UGCC were vested in Eastern vesture. But the Coptic Catholic Patriarch wore something I've never seen Copts wear, and it was all red, and the Syro-Malabar Major Archbishop was wearing Roman cardinalatial vesture to a tee...there was nothing Syro or Malabar about it.

And while a patriarch does rank above a cardinal, he does not have the right to act as a elector for the papacy.

Until such a time as this is addressed, I have no problem with patriarchs being cardinals.

I have a problem with the concept of prelates from other "sui iuris" Churches electing the Patriarch of the "sui iuris" Church of Rome. It seems to me that such is a form of "interference" with the internal affairs of governance of a particular Church.

Of course, David's point that the Pope is not just Patriarch of Rome but head of the whole Catholic Church is duly noted, and is one reason why under the present circumstances I'd agree with his position that Eastern Catholic prelates should have some say. But I still think it is, for lack of a better word, wrong.